https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175122 A statutory scheme that gave the authorities uncontrolled discretion to identify and deal with vacant land, without notice, hearing, guiding policy or rational criteria, was held arbitrary and unconstitutional under Article 14, and also inconsistent with Article 19(1)(f) while that right remained in force. The challenge under Article 31 failed because the law did not transfer ownership or possession to the State and was not acquisition or requisition in substance. Legislative competence was upheld, as the subject matter fell within the State List. The enactment was therefore struck down principally for arbitrariness and discrimination. en-us Wed, 28 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175122 A statutory scheme that gave the authorities uncontrolled discretion to identify and deal with vacant land, without notice, hearing, guiding policy or rational criteria, was held arbitrary and unconstitutional under Article 14, and also inconsistent with Article 19(1)(f) while that right remained in force. The challenge under Article 31 failed because the law did not transfer ownership or possession to the State and was not acquisition or requisition in substance. Legislative competence was upheld, as the subject matter fell within the State List. The enactment was therefore struck down principally for arbitrariness and discrimination. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175122